How might the nullity process be improved?

[Gorgias]

In another thread, some folks voiced their unhappiness with the process of nullity proceedings. In particular, the perceived “intrusiveness” and “impersonal nature” of the process leaves a bad taste in the mouths of some who have engaged in the nullity process.

So, a question was raised: if you dislike the process as you’ve experienced it, what would you suggest be done in order to improve the process?

This is a somewhat nuanced question. After all, canon law guides the goals of the process – that is, to make a determination of whether there was a missing or defective element that affects validity at the time of the wedding ceremony. So, we’re not asking whether we can avoid this discernment – it’s a requirement.

The question, then, is: if we’re trying to make this discernment, what’s the best way to do it? Since it’s an evidence-gathering process, it is necessary to ask not only the spouses, but also others who might have witnessed the event that demonstrates the nullity of the marriage.

(As an aside, this means that, by and large, the questions being asked can’t generally be “well, tell me what happened ten years into the marriage”, since that doesn’t imply that the situation that later developed was, in fact, present at the time of the wedding.)

So, just for the sake of discussion… what would you suggest? How would you improve the process, without changing what the process is trying to discern?

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m here to watch and learn. I am very interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on the subject. It seems evident to me that this is more than a matter of just a few “complainers” that have an ax to grind. Many if not most think the process needs reform to some extent. Even the pope has acknowledged that reform is needed and has taken a few steps towards that end.

But what does that reform—concretely—look like? If the answer to that question was simple and easy, I imagine that the changes would have already been made. So I think it’s safe to say that this is not an easy question with a simple solution.

However, when we put our minds together, good things can happen. So I look forward to any insight that can be shared since I know my own is limited in this area.

 

[SMHW]

I am also here to watch and learn.

It is my understanding that the processes in place in the United States and Canada may be close to the ideal that the Pope wants for the world as a whole. I doubt that is what people in the United States and Canada want to hear.

 

[Gorgias]

And let’s not forget that the diocese is no longer charging anyone any amount for the processing of the nullity…

 

[Solomonson]

It would be made exceedingly uniform and fair across the entire Church. As it is, there seems to be a feeling that with enough $$$ and the right canon lawyer, just about anyone can get an annulment.

 

[buc_fan33]

Pope Francis has already made some positive changes. As others have noted, he did away with a fee. The obvious downside is that Dioceses now have to figure out how to pay those who staff tribunals a just and living wage, but nevertheless, he has removed money as an obstacle to obtaining an annulment. He also has done away with the Court of Second Instance. This drastically cuts down on the time of the process.

In my experience, the pace of the process is most dependent upon how quickly the petitioner and witnesses get their material in. If they do it promptly, the process moves along rather quickly. Perhaps in some large archdioceses, there is more of a backlog on cases, and thus a need for more canon lawyers serving on the tribunal. Or, perhaps we could have some changes in who has jurisdiction to rule on a certain case. Perhaps dioceses or archdioceses that are overrun could be given leeway to send some of their cases to other (arch)dioceses that aren’t so backlogged, independent of the domicile of the petitioner, respondent, or where the marriage took place.

 

[tee_eff_em]

ObDisclaimer: Here to Watch and Learn (Mostly)

My thoughts on the two numbered points:

1. 
   *]Can the tribunals be re-formed to seat people trained in a sub-specialty of Canon Law, viz those parts relevant to the process. That is: Is it necessary that the tribunal be composed of full-fledged Canon Lawyers?
   *]Do the members of the tribunal (especially if re-formed as above) need be full time employees of the diocese? Two priest-lawyers of my acquaintance are full-time employees, but they have pastoral duties in addition to their tribunal duties (ie they do not sit on the tribunal full time)?
   
   Would either or both of these significantly reduce the $$$$ required?
   
   Just my :twocents:
   
   tee
   Other ObDisclaimer: Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[7_Sorrows]

And let’s not forget that the diocese is no longer charging anyone any amount for the processing of the nullity…

And my understanding it is at the discretion of each diocese whether they choose to charge. I believe in California some still charge.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

It occurs to me that many secular divorces take more than 12 months, some more than 18 months, if there are serious conflicts over division of property, alimony, child support, chil custody, etc.

However, I get the feeling some Catholics find the process frustrating because they hold the Church to higher standards than a mere secular law court.

I’d also like to ask the clergy, how do you think divorced Catholics should be counseled about applying for decrees? Some on CAF state that priests and others advised them that there was no reason to apply for annulment unless they wanted to remarry, and they did not interpret this as “wanting to marry eventually” but “already dating or being engaged to the next spouse”. Some advise everyone to get an annulment, “just in case you meet someone special”.

It also seems (and I have actually read articles about it) that many who apply for such decrees in the US are not cradle Catholics but non-Catholics who wish to convert, or simply marry Catholic spouses in the Church. As many such non-Catholic religions openly accept the possibility of divorce, why can’t that process be streamlines? I understand that right now, even 2 atheists getting married by a judge with a prenuptial agreement are presumed to be in a valid marriage, but I’d think such a marriage would be obviously invalid?

 

[Gorgias]

And my understanding it is at the discretion of each diocese whether they choose to charge. I believe in California some still charge.

That’s my understanding, as well. I was pointing out to Deacon Jeff that his diocese no longer charges.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I started my process over a year ago. I am sure there are some cases more complicated than others. I probably will not have an answer until next year.

My biggest frustration is witnesses. Maybe it would be better to list frustrations and problems to see where improvements need to be made.

1. It is hard to find witnesses going back 30+ years.
2. Reluctance to contact anyone (ex in-laws) when you have had no contact with them for 30+ years and expect them to want to take their time filling out the questionnaire.
3. Witnesses who are not Catholic and don’t understand why an annulment is needed and are not interested in helping.
4. The bureaucratic aspect of the process. Does anyone really care how painful it is to go through the process let alone put it on paper? I didn’t get the feeling the people doing their job enjoy working in the process. My first contact was as cold as a fish and very rude like I was one more problem she had to deal with. There was no warmth.
   Very arrogant as though she was holding all the power. She snidely asked if it was true what she had read on the questionnaire. I wanted to say “No. I spent ten hours pulling
   things out of thin air!”. My stomach fell and I actually went into a depression wondering how I could have been so stupid to even start the process and share so many private details of my life only to have someone ask me if it was true! I pretty much shut down and told myself I was through with the whole thing. This person was not my advocate by the way. I felt so let down I even stopped going to Mass and wondered why I was even in the Catholic Church. That lasted for a few months. And I have considered my options if it does not come back in my favor which is sad because after being a non church going Christian for 38 years I felt like I had found a home.
   This only brought to mind why I stopped attending any church at 18.
5. Even though they have streamlined the process it is still slow.

I have no idea how to overhaul this process, but people need to be made to feel they are treated like a human being and not just a file or dossier as Don Ruggero said in
another thread.

 

[TechieGuy]

One big improvement would be to make the rules regarding “Requirements of Form” for non-Catholic Christians more in line with those of Catholics.

For example, if two non-Catholic Christians were married by a Justice of the Peace or by their buddy who had just gotten an ‘ordination’ from the Universal Life Church, then that in itself could be evidence that the couple did not intend to enter into a Sacramental Marriage.

 

[Joe_5859]

And my understanding it is at the discretion of each diocese whether they choose to charge. I believe in California some still charge.

From Pope Francis’ document Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (his 2015 motu proprio making some changes to the annulment process):

Episcopal conferences, in close collaboration with judges, should ensure, to the best of their ability and with due regard for the just compensation of tribunal employees, that processes remain free of charge, and that the Church, showing herself a generous mother to the faithful, manifest, in a matter so intimately tied to the salvation of souls, the gratuitous love of Christ by which we have all been saved.

That sounds to me like Pope Francis wants it to be free everywhere, but it does seem to leave some wiggle room. I had assumed all dioceses (at least in the U.S.) had dropped the charges, but I might be mistaken. I know that mine did. Some had already done away with the fees even before Pope Francis asked and I don’t know of any diocese that would refuse someone based on their inability to pay.

 

[Gorgias]

One big improvement would be to make the rules regarding “Requirements of Form” for non-Catholic Christians more in line with those of Catholics.

For example, if two non-Catholic Christians were married by a Justice of the Peace or by their buddy who had just gotten an ‘ordination’ from the Universal Life Church, then that in itself could be evidence that the couple did not intend to enter into a Sacramental Marriage.

I’m a little confused by your suggestion. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church should dictate to non-Catholic Christians that, in order for their marriages to be considered valid by the Catholic Church, they’d have to do something that their denomination doesn’t require of them?

 

[Joe_5859]

One big improvement would be to make the rules regarding “Requirements of Form” for non-Catholic Christians more in line with those of Catholics.

For example, if two non-Catholic Christians were married by a Justice of the Peace or by their buddy who had just gotten an ‘ordination’ from the Universal Life Church, then that in itself could be evidence that the couple did not intend to enter into a Sacramental Marriage.

Except it wouldn’t make much sense for non-Catholics to be bound by the form that Catholics are bound to under canon law.

Two non-Catholic Christians married by a Justice of the Peace or their buddy with an on-line ordination are validly, sacramentally married. That is the assumption unless proven otherwise. The marriage is a sacrament by virtue of the husband and wife both being baptized, not by the pedigree and/or credentials of the presider.

 

[TechieGuy]

I’m a little confused by your suggestion. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church should dictate to non-Catholic Christians that, in order for their marriages to be considered valid by the Catholic Church, they’d have to do something that their denomination doesn’t require of them?

I am saying that if someone says that their understanding of marriage at the time was that it was a purely civil matter and that if the record shows that they were married civilly, then those things together should lead to a fast-track decision that the marriage was invalid because of a lack of proper understanding of marriage.

 

[TechieGuy]

Furthermore, there might well be an examination of the question of just how ‘Christian’ the folks were when they entered into marriage.

A person who was baptized as an infant at the Methodist Church where their grandparents went, but never set foot in a church again and considered himself an agnostic at the time of their civil marriage would hardly be expected to consider himself as entering into a Sacramental Marriage.

 

[Gorgias]

1. It is hard to find witnesses going back 30+ years.

You’re absolutely correct! It’s really difficult to find someone – let alone someone who can think back that far and remember what they witnessed that long ago!

And yet… the question that’s being asked really is “what happened at the time of the wedding?”. How might we discern the answer to that question without asking people?

1. Reluctance to contact anyone (ex in-laws) when you have had no contact with them for 30+ years and expect them to want to take their time filling out the questionnaire.

This is very true. But, ex-in-laws aren’t necessarily the people you have to ask. In fact, as an advocate, I tend to prioritize them lower down the list of folks who a petitioner might want to contact.

1. Witnesses who are not Catholic and don’t understand why an annulment is needed and are not interested in helping.

Agreed; even Catholics misunderstand the process.

1. The bureaucratic aspect of the process. Does anyone really care how painful it is to go through the process let alone put it on paper?

By “bureaucratic”, do you mean “formal”? It is a formal, legal process… and, along with that, comes a certain amount of impartial, formal professionalism.

Very arrogant as though she was holding all the power. She snidely asked if it was true what she had read on the questionnaire.

I can only hope, in all charity, that all she was doing was asking “this is an affidavit; do you affirm that you’ve told the truth in all you’ve written?” In other words, I’m hoping that she was really just asking the pro-forma question that must be asked when an affidavit is taken. I understand that your perception was “uncaring and snide”… but I hope that isn’t what was going on…

1. Even though they have streamlined the process it is still slow.

It is slow. And, Deacon Jeff alludes to some of the reasons: tribunals generally are understaffed to handle the volume of work, and it is cost-prohibitive to add sufficient numbers of employees who are qualified in canon law.

I have no idea how to overhaul this process, but people need to be made to feel they are treated like a human being

Hopefully, that’s what advocates do. But, to tell the truth, I get the feeling that often, advocates, too, are overwhelmed by the volume of cases and work, especially if they’re volunteers!

 

[TechieGuy]

Two non-Catholic Christians married by a Justice of the Peace or their buddy with an on-line ordination are validly, sacramentally married. That is the assumption unless proven otherwise.

So change the assumptions…

 

[buc_fan33]

One big improvement would be to make the rules regarding “Requirements of Form” for non-Catholic Christians more in line with those of Catholics.

For example, if two non-Catholic Christians were married by a Justice of the Peace or by their buddy who had just gotten an ‘ordination’ from the Universal Life Church, then that in itself could be evidence that the couple did not intend to enter into a Sacramental Marriage.

Not to quibble, but it’s important in the context. It doesn’t matter whether the marriage was sacramental or not. It’s important to clarify some terms.

Valid marriage–the marriage “happened.” It didn’t just “appear” to happen.

Sacramental marriage–a valid marriage between two baptized persons. A sacramental marriage is by definition valid.

in the annulment process, there are a number of routes one may take. For a Catholic to enter into a valid marriage, there must be the consent of the spouses, no impediments to marriage, and they must observe the valid sacramental form or receive a dispensation not to do so. So, for a Catholic applying for a decree of nullity, there are essentially three options you can take, depending on what grounds you wish to challenge the validity of your marriage: lack of form, lack of consent, or an impediment to marriage.

For a non-Catholic, they are not bound by canonical form. So, the only options are lack of consent (which is really what we’re talking about in this thread) or appealing to the existence of an impediment to marriage.

However, there is another route if the marriage isn’t sacramental, meaning, it wasn’t rendered between two baptized Christians. Even if it was a valid marriage, because it is not sacramental, the bond may be dissolved. Even in these cases, usually the best route is to apply for the full lack of consent annulment. There are a number of reasons for this, but suffice it to say, that’s the preferred route. However, if that is impossible for any number of reasons, one can appeal to either Pauline Privilege or Petrine Privilege. (To be honest, I can never keep these two separate in my mind…I even have to go and look them up on occasion.)

Anyway, again, not to get overly technical, but it is an important distinction between a valid marriage, and a sacramental marriage. A sacramental marriage is necessarily valid, but a valid marriage may not be sacramental.